Compare ski resorts

Recommendation

Decision summary

Amiata narrowly leads because of solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 53/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Cutigliano is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Effectively tied

Amiata

54/100

Why

Amiata narrowly leads because of solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 53/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence. Cutigliano is the strongest alternative. 2 options remain on the Pareto frontier. 3 options have limited evidence coverage.

Limited evidenceUpdated 19 h ago

Structural fit score: 54/100.

Evidence coverage is limited; the ranking may move with new observations.

AlternativeCutigliano

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Cutigliano is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

Would change ifFresh observations or stronger source agreement could materially change the ranking.

Detailed comparison reasoningEvidence bridge, trade-offs and decision boundaries

Recommended for this profile

Amiata

Lifts-led destinationLow-regret choiceEffectively tied

Effectively tied with Cutigliano. solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence, solid reliability match · 53/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence—but the result is close.

Why Amiata leads Cutigliano Terrain fit +1.2 pts

Terrain fit +1.2Snow reliability -0.3

Incoming snow and Weather stay in the forecast layer unless current/forecast evidence is explicitly part of the Decision score.

Strongest alternativeCutigliano

Main uncertaintyThe lead over Cutigliano is small. Some requested evidence is unavailable; the score is rescaled over the evidence that exists.

What could change the resultReduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Cutigliano becomes the leading option.

Lead margin0.7pts

Difference between the first and second option.

Ranking stabilityHigh100%

The ranking changes little under nearby priority weights. Rank range 1–2.

Evidence confidence57%

Coverage and coherence of evidence used by this comparison.

Advanced analysisSensitivity, Pareto trade-offs and score contributions

Pareto frontier2 options

No selected option is clearly dominated on the shared evidence.

Lowest-regret optionCutigliano · 86% robustness

Explore decision boundaries · what preference change flips the winner?

These are the smallest tested single-dimension changes that produce a different leader. Apply one to inspect that scenario; no new database query is required to calculate the boundary.

Lift systemCutigliano

Reduce lift system weight from 14 to 11 and Cutigliano becomes the leading option.

14 → 11

Family & valueCutigliano

Increase family & value weight from 12 to 15 and Cutigliano becomes the leading option.

12 → 15

TerrainCutigliano

Reduce terrain weight from 22 to 11 and Cutigliano becomes the leading option.

22 → 11

ScaleCutigliano

Increase scale weight from 16 to 30 and Cutigliano becomes the leading option.

16 → 30

Why Amiata leads Cutigliano · 0.7 pts

Lift system+4.8 pts

Family & value-4.4 pts

Terrain+1.7 pts

Scale-0.9 pts

Snow-0.3 pts

Point contributions reconcile the structural Fit dimensions and confidence-limited current opportunity. Missing evidence is not treated as zero.

More comparison leadersAdditional category leaders

Resort overview

Trip match is profile-specific. Expand the calculation to see exactly how each score is built.

Amiata

#1 · Monte Amiata · Italy

Decision54/100

Fit54/100

Now0/100

Quality2.0/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5353/100Terrain5454/100

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit53.9100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision53.9/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow53/100 · 37% evidence 14.4 / 27.3 pts

Terrain60/100 · 52% evidence 15.0 / 25.0 pts

Scale37/100 · 100% evidence 6.8 / 18.2 pts

Lift system69/100 · 68% evidence 11.0 / 15.9 pts

Family & value50/100 · 41% evidence 6.9 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 51%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeLifts-led destinationBest useShort breaks · 56/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area10 km · 368 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated 1 day earlierPeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 54/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 53/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

The ski area is comparatively compact.

Cutigliano

#2 · Doganaccia 2000 · Italy

Decision53/100

Fit53/100

Now0/100

Quality–/10

Now00 cm freshReliability5454/100Terrain5353/100

Decision score composition

Fit remains the structural anchor. Current opportunity receives weight only when current evidence is available, covered and fresh; otherwise Decision falls back toward Fit.

Fit53.2100% weight Now0.00% weight Decision53.2/100

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Snow54/100 · 37% evidence 14.7 / 27.3 pts

Terrain53/100 · 44% evidence 13.3 / 25.0 pts

Scale43/100 · 100% evidence 7.7 / 18.2 pts

Lift system39/100 · 68% evidence 6.2 / 15.9 pts

Family & value83/100 · 41% evidence 11.3 / 13.6 pts

AccessNo data excluded

Data coverage: 49%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snow0 cm 0.0 / 100.0 pts

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 16%

Destination typeFamily progression baseBest useFamily trips · 60/100Snow reliabilityModerateSki area15 km · 349 m verticalCurrent dataUpdated 1 day earlierPeer group<50 km · Top <2,000 m

Strengths

Solid terrain match · 53/100 — led by strong terrain profile and substantial ski-area scale; partial evidence..
Solid reliability match · 54/100 — led by strong snow resilience; partial evidence..

Consider

The ski area is comparatively compact.

Castelnuovo di Garfagnana

#3 · · Italy

Decision–/100

Fit–/100

Now–/100

Quality–/10

Structural Fit calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

AccessNo data excluded

Family & valueNo data excluded

Lift systemNo data excluded

ScaleNo data excluded

SnowNo data excluded

TerrainNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Current-opportunity calculation

Missing evidence is unknown, never zero. Available dimensions are rescaled to 100%; evidence coverage remains visible separately.

Fresh snowNo data excluded

Mid-mountain snowNo data excluded

Mountain snowNo data excluded

Open terrainNo data excluded

Snow qualityNo data excluded

Valley snowNo data excluded

Data coverage: 0%

Destination typeEvidence-limited destinationSnow reliabilityNot availableSki area– · – verticalCurrent dataUpdated 1 day earlier

Strengths

The destination remains scoreable, but there is not enough evidence for a strong archetype.

Consider

Some enriched evidence is unavailable; it is excluded from the score rather than treated as zero.

Side-by-side evidence

Detailed comparison

Structural snow resilience uses the multi-winter early/core/late archive after daily de-duplication. Calendar-date rows separately compare current observations with the previous five years. Missing archive evidence remains unknown.

Find column

Scroll horizontally to compare resortsThe attribute column stays visible

Attribute	AmiataMonte Amiata	CutiglianoDoganaccia 2000	Castelnuovo di GarfagnanaItaly
Assessment
Decision score	54/100	53/100	–
Structural Fit	54/100	53/100	–
Current opportunity	0/100	0/100	–
Overall quality	2.0/10	–	–
Recommendation confidence	Low	Low	Low
Ski-area profile
Historical snow reliability	57/100	56/100	–
Typical daytime high	9°C	6°Cclear advantage	–
Typical snow/freezing level	–	–	–
Typical overnight low	2°C	4°C	–
Rating	6.2/10clear advantage	5.4/10	–
Area size class	20 km or less	20 km or less	–
Ability profile	expert	intermediate	–
Price class	avg	–	–
Terrain and altitude
Marked pistes	10 km	15 km	–
Lowest point	1,370 m	1,446 m	–
Highest point	1,738 m	1,795 m	–
Vertical range	368 m	349 m	–
Blue pistes	12%	53%	–
Red pistes	61%	33%	–
Black pistes	27%clear advantage	13%	–
Terrain above 2,000 m	–	–	–
Terrain above 3,000 m	–	–	–
Piste-mix diversity	83/100	88/100	–
Slope-angle diversity	–	–	–
Very/extremely steep terrain	–	–	–
Historical context
Historical snow resilience	–	–	–
Typical early-winter mountain depth	–	–	–
Typical core-winter mountain depth	–	–	–
Typical late-winter mountain depth	–	–	–
Snow consistency	–	–	–
Late-winter retention	–	–	–
Lower-mountain retention	–	–	–
Warm-winter resilience	–	–	–
Mountain snow versus typical	–	–	–
Valley snow versus typical	–	–	–
Open slopes versus typical	–	–	–
Current snow
Valley snow	–	–	–
Mid-mountain snow	–	–	–
Mountain snow	–	–	–
Fresh snow	0 cm	0 cm	–
Snow quality	–	–	–
Snow alert	0 cm	0 cm	–
Open terrain and lifts
Open slopes	–	–	–
Open lifts	–	–	–
Lift capacity per piste km	657 pph/kmclear advantage	372 pph/km	–
Lift-system coverage	0.50×clear advantage	0.31×	–
Terrain per lift	1.4 km/lift	2.5 km/lift	–
Weather
Minimum temperature	-3°C	2°C	–
Maximum temperature	2°C	7°C	–
Suitability and facilities
Family suitability	family	–	–
Piste variety	–	–	–
Off-piste	–	–	–
Cross-country	–	–	–
Lift network	–	–	–
Mountain restaurants	–	–	–
Après-ski	–	–	–
Public transport	–	–	–
Best airport transfer	–	–	–
Skiing per transfer hour	–	–	–

Shape the comparison

Start a comparison

Decision summary

Amiata

Amiata

Resort overview

Amiata

Cutigliano

Castelnuovo di Garfagnana

Detailed comparison